| From: | korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Hacking SR4 (was something else at one point) |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Oct 2005 05:59:20 -0700 (PDT) |
> > mourning?
> But you haven't had a few moments, you've had a few *months*. (Or
> at least it feels like it.)
The pdf has been available since around mid to late August, yes? I
didn't get one until a week and a half ago. Took me a few days to
read over it. There has been roughly a month during which SR4
threads have been active, most in the last week. As I ~really~ hate
the new edition, and have played for a ~really~ long time... a month
of making it clear is not unrealistic. If you are referring to the
posting explosion back when the first FAQ came out, I was indeed
vocal against the new edition then. Oddly enough, despite many
people cautioning that I should wait to see the new edition before
judging, nothing about SR4 has discredited anything I said then.
> I agree with you. You should have your chance to mourn.
>
> But, you do not get to carry it on into obnoxiousness.
Actually, you are not entirely correct. I ~shouldn't~ carry it to
obnoxiousness. Very different statement. Unless an admin decides
that the thread needs to die, or a person needs to take a break
regarding a given thread, that person "get's to" say whatever they
like for however long. What one get's to do and what one should do
is a different debate entirely. I had every intention of saying
nothing more about SR4 after someone moved the debate/argument from
"pro stance/con stance" to "you should shut up". My rather explosive
last post was not really a pro/con argument about SR4 anymore. It
was a tirade against a style of arguing that I detest as purile and
unfair. Those of us (and I am not alone) who have a negative
reaction of varying degrees to SR4 have not been telling people who
like it that they suck, or are infantile, or should shut up and go
post elsewhere. What we have done is say loudly and often that we
don't like the change and believe our reasons are good. Many
proponents of SR4 have managed to wax obnoxious on their side of the
debate. Which they, in fact, "get to" do. Where I draw the line,
absolutely and angrily, is the following.
Person A: "I support this side of the argument for reasons 1, 2, and
3."
Person B: "I disagree, supporting instead the opposing argument for
rasons 4, 5, and 6."
Person A: "Well, I think that 3 counters 5, 1 and 2 make 6 moot, and
argument 7 says it all."
Person B: "I disagree because you are a poopy-head and you are closed
minded if you don't see my side."
Person A: "I know I have a spare nuke around here somewhere."
Maybe I am wrong, but I have felt like (and watched others be) Person
A. We argue idea after idea about SR4, saying, "see, damn, that just
isn't shadowrun as it has ever been and to me that is a Bad Thing."
And we are countered in our argument (in general) by Person B, who
more often than not retreats behind the catch-all style of defensive
argument exaggerated above. Just because I have a fairly well
thought out opposition to something and refuse to budge on the core
thesis I have arrived at does not make me automatically the "closed
minded" party. Nor does the person slapping that label on their
opponent inhereit by default the opposite label. "Open minded" is
not a virtue one attains by being the first to accuse the opposition
of not having said virtue. Hence my explosion. Which, while the
language strikes me as a bit over the top (I was pissed off), is none
the less a post I stand by. If I am "whining" (as I have been
accused of) about SR4 by saying in no uncertain terms that it
represent a thorough gutting of the game, then everyone who ever
claimed SR(pre-4th) was too hard, or the rules for <whatever> were
too copmlex, or decking took too long was whining as well. I have
had no difficulty picking up any edition of SR as I went. SR3 was
far and away the easiest to pick up. Yes, some tweaking was needed
in certain areas. That is what the online community is for. You
develop a house rule, or you find someone else who did and use
theirs. For me and for others on the list, there is no tweak big
enough to bring SR4 back to resembling the game we love. So we won't
be making the switch. Leaving us marginalized by our dedication to
the previous edition. And I don't like it... as even a chimpanzee
could have guessed by now just by volume of posts. I am ready to
hang up my SR4 critic hat and give up, since the damage is done and
there is no going back. But, I do not accept that anyone eer had the
right to tell me to stop whining and grow up. I never said that to
anyone complaining about any aspect of SR<x>, and I never said it to
anyone touting the vast improvement (in their opinion) of wireless
electric mixers and Bluetooth-like detachable genitalia. I attacked
the concepts/rules/storyline of SR4. My opponents attacked me.
[Note - Not all of them, and my rant was never aimed at anyone who
was not engaging in said practice.] But, there were plenty of
pro-SR4 posts that hid behind the "you are just narrow minded"
argument. Sorry, but any debate point that loses topic and becomes
an attack on principle of your opposition lacks all credibility.
Suggesting that there is no credible argument against the basic
thesis that SR4 is a drastic deviation from all things historically
Shadowrun. (In some people's opinion, poorly conceived. The game
needed refining, not a tear down and rebuild with a different
architect. Goes my side of the debate anyway.) YMMV. If you want,
you get to be obnoxious about touting your mileage. We won't address
the question of whether you should.
======Korishinzo
--I'll try and lurk now, my temper made me profane
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
